Legal Research
Cases
Roebuck v Smoje

Roebuck v Smoje

Case [2000] WASC 312 20 December 2000

Proof of Will in solemn form

Undue Influence

Testamentary Capacity

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ROEBUCK -v- SMOJE & ORS [2000] WASC 312

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 312
Case No:	CIV:1309/1998	Heard:	20-23 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	20/12/00
No of pages:	36	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff's claim for proof of Will in solemn form allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	DONALD JOHN ROEBUCK ANTHONY VLADIMIR SMOJE MIRJANA PALMINA SMOJE NEVEN TIHOMIR SMOJE THE RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA WA BRANCH INC
Catchwords:	Wills Proof of Will in solemn form Testamentary capacity Undue influence alleged Elderly male pensioner living alone with poor hearing and eyesight Execution of Will arranged by the plaintiff as a friend and principal beneficiary Suspicious circumstances impose upon the Court a requirement of special vigilance Plaintiff's burden of proof discharged in circumstances of the present case Defendants' burden of proof concerning undue influence not discharged
Legislation:	Wills Act 1970, s 13
Case References:	Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558 Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 Hall v Hall [1868] LR 1 P & D 481 Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519 Silvester & Ors v Tarabini & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960062; 13 February 1996 West Australian Trustees v Holmes [1961] WAR 144 Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CLR 439 Bella-Lewis v Thompson, unreported; CA SCt of Qld; 220/94; 27 February 1996 Beverley & Anor v Watson & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA (Owen J); Library No 940502; 14 September 1994 Callaghan v Myers (1880) 1 LR (NSW) 351 Durnell v Cornfield (1844) 1 Rob ECC 51 In the Will of Ivory, unreported; SCt of Vic (Eames J); Prob 19 and 25/93; 14 February 1995 In the Will of Moriarty [1956] VLR 400 Kenny v Wilson (1911) 11 SR (NSW) 460 Lister v Smith (1863) 164 ER 1282 Pates v Craig and the Public Trustee, Estate of the late Joyce Jean Cole, unreported; SCt of NSW Equity Division; 106306/94; 28 August 1995 Perpetual Executors, Trustees & Agency Co (WA) v Deacon (1935) 38 WALR 31 Pilkington v Gray [1899] AC 401 Re Crooks (Estate); Akerman v Brown, unreported; SCt of NSW Probate Division (Young J); 107881/93; 14 December 1994 Re Edgar [1919] VLR 683 Re Fenwick [1972] VR 646 Re Walker [1905] 1 Ch 160 Ridge v Rowden, unreported, SCt of NSW Probate Division (Santow J); 100948/95; 10 April 1996 Symes v Green (1859) 165 ER 785 Timbury v Coffee (1941) 66 CLR 277 Winter v Crichton (1991) 23 NSWLR 116 Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 WLR 284

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : ROEBUCK -v- SMOJE & ORS [2000] WASC 312 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 20-23 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 20 DECEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1309 of 1998 BETWEEN : DONALD JOHN ROEBUCK

Plaintiff

AND

ANTHONY VLADIMIR SMOJE

MIRJANA PALMINA SMOJE

NEVEN TIHOMIR SMOJE

First Defendants

THE RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA WA BRANCH INC

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Wills - Proof of Will in solemn form - Testamentary…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Roebuck v Smoje

Details

AGLC: Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312
Case: [2000] WASC 312
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roebuck v Smoje involved a dispute over the validity of a will executed by an elderly man with poor hearing and eyesight. The plaintiff, Roebuck, sought to have the will proven in solemn form, asserting that she had arranged for the will to be executed while acting as a friend and primary beneficiary. The defendants, Smoje, contested the will on the basis of undue influence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proving the will in solemn form, and if the defendants had successfully proven that the will was executed under undue influence.

The court held that the plaintiff had discharged her burden of proof. The judge noted that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will were suspicious, necessitating a high degree of vigilance. The court examined the evidence presented and concluded that the plaintiff's actions in arranging the will were not indicative of undue influence. The defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the testator's free will was overborne at the time of executing the will. The court found that the plaintiff had acted properly and within the bounds of her friendship with the deceased, and that the testator's testamentary capacity was not impaired.

Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiff's claim for proof of the will in solemn form. The judge's decision emphasised the importance of the plaintiff's conduct being transparent and the absence of any improper conduct on her part. The court's ruling validated the will, thereby ensuring that the deceased's wishes were carried out as expressed in the document. The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claim for proof of the will in solemn form was allowed, and the defendants' objections were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim for proof of Will in solemn form allowed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312

Most Recent Citation

Paraskov v Paraskos [2002] WASC 109

Cases citing this decision · 13 of 13 shown

McHugh Pettit v Waters-Pettit
[2024] WASC 328 Para 9

…severe physical conditions present, such as where a testator is blind or unable to read or write.[57] [56] Hayden [28], referring to Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 [93] (Hasluck J) ( Roebuck v Smoje ); Bailey v Bailey ; West Australian Trustee Executor and Agency Co Ltd v Homes [1961] WAR 144. [57] Roebuck v Smo…
Kalaf v Panagiota Grimanes as Executor of the Will of Despina Kalaf
[2013] WASC 327 Para 1

…unless the party who seeks to prove the will removes the suspicion and affirmatively proves that she knew and approved its contents: Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 [94] ‑ [95]; Fisher v Kay [86].…
Re Will of Aubrey Walter Mason (Dec);
[2012] WASC 111 Para 4

…As to the time at which testamentary capacity needs to be established (the relevant time), see Brown [99], referring to Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 (Hasluck J): As to the date as at which testamentary capacity must have existed it is established that if the testator had capacity at the time he gave instruction…
Brown v Willoughby
[2012] WASC 20

…125 Re Snowden [1979] Ch 528 Re The Estate of Smith; Ex parte Dickens v Smith, Bolt & Smith [1988] FCA 315 Re Williams [1897] 2 Ch 12 Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 Sale v Moore (1827) 1 Sim 534; 57 ER 678 Scarpuzza v Scarpuzza [2011] WASC 65 The Estate of Kirs (deceased) (1990) 55 SASR 61 Thornhill v Thomas [201…
Brown v Wade
[2010] WASC 367 Para 2

…I take the following, from Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 [87] (Hasluck J) to be a sufficient general statement of the law as to the meaning of testamentary capacity: In Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549, Cockburn CJ said at 565 that in order to exercise the power of disposition by the execution of a Will a t…
Fisher v Kay
[2010] WASCA 160 Para 2

…idence was of circumstances giving rise to a suspicion that the 'terms of the will do not accord with the intention of the testator': Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 [94].…
Kay v Fisher
[2009] WASC 193 Para 1

…vidence is of circumstances giving rise to a suspicion that the 'terms of the Will do not accord with the intention of the testator': Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 [94] (Hasluck J). In Roebuck his Honour added: The suspicion of the Court will always be aroused where the testator was blind, illiterate or mentally…
Gent v Robbins
[2008] WASC 179

…Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558 Banks v Goodfellow [1870] LR 5 QB 549 Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 The Public Trustee in and for Western Australia v Churches of Christ Homes and Community Services Inc [2005] WASC 289 West Australian Trustee Executor & Agency Company Ltd v Holmes [1961] WAR 144 Wheatley v Edga…
Reklitis v Bosze
[2007] WASC 285 Para 9

…ce in the context of a probate question, as distinct from a gift in the course of a lifetime, I refer to the decision of Hasluck J in Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 [127] ‑ [130]. There is no evidence of coercion or of any conduct of the kind which would amount to undue influence. Indeed, the evidence is to the c…
The Public Trustee v Hinkley
[2007] WASC 271 Para 3

…The legal principles are comprehensively discussed in Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 per Hasluck J, [85] ‑ [104]. It is not necessary to repeat them. When a will is executed and attested in a normal manner the presumption arises that the testator had mental capacity at the time the will was made. As against that…
Barndon v Chelvanayagam
[2006] WASC 118

…SC 91 Rakich v Stanicich [2004] WASC 212 Re White [1951] NZLR 393 Re Will of Strickland (decd); Ex parte Varian [2004] WASC 261 Roebuck v Smoje & Ors [2000] WASC 312…
Hayden v Bond
[2003] WASC 96

…of Key (Dec) (1892) 18 VLR 640 In the Will of Young (1968) 70 SR(NSW) 386 Re Estate of Dudley Herbert Crossland (Dec) [2001] WASC 21 Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312…
Paraskov v Paraskos
[2002] WASC 109

…4) WALR 131 O'Brien v Trustees of Western Australia Ltd [1999] WASC 185 Orton v Smith (1873) LR 3 P&D 23 Re A Solicitor [1975] QB 475 Roebuck v Smoje [2000] WASC 312 Roos v Karpenkow (1998) 71 SASR 497 Theophanous v Gillespie [2001] QSC 177 Twist v Tye [1902] P 92 Tyrrell v Painton [1894] P 151 West Australian Tru…

View all 13 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Worth v Clasohm
[1952] HCA 67

…r & Ors v Tarabini & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960062; 13 February 1996 West Australian Trustees v Holmes [1961] WAR 144 Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CLR 439 Bella-Lewis v Thompson, unreported; CA SCt of Qld; 220/94; 27 February 1996 Beverley & Anor v Watson & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA (Owen J); Library N…
Timbury v Coffee
[1941] HCA 22

…Ch 160 Ridge v Rowden, unreported, SCt of NSW Probate Division (Santow J); 100948/95; 10 April 1996 Symes v Green (1859) 165 ER 785 Timbury v Coffee (1941) 66 CLR 277 Winter v Crichton (1991) 23 NSWLR 116 Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 WLR 284…
Bailey v Bailey
[1924] HCA 21

…Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558 Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 Hall v Hall [1868] LR 1 P & D 481 Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519 Silvester & Ors v Tarabini & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960062; 13 February 1996 West Australian Trustees v Holmes [1961] WAR 144 Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CLR 439 Bel…
Nock v Austin
[1918] HCA 73

…Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558 Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 Hall v Hall [1868] LR 1 P & D 481 Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519 Silvester & Ors v Tarabini & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960062; 13 February 1996 West Australian Trustees v Holmes [1961] WAR 144 Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CLR 439 Bel…
Shorter v Hodges
5 QB 549

…Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558 Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 Hall v Hall [1868] LR 1 P & D 481 Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519 Silvester & Ors v Tarabini & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960062; 13 February 1996 West Australian Trustees v Holmes [1961] WAR 144 Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CL…
Callaghan v Myers
(1888) 128 US 617

…eported; CA SCt of Qld; 220/94; 27 February 1996 Beverley & Anor v Watson & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA (Owen J); Library No 940502; 14 September 1994 Callaghan v Myers (1880) 1 LR (NSW) 351 Durnell v Cornfield (1844) 1 Rob ECC 51 In the Will of Ivory, unreported; SCt of Vic (Eames J); Prob 19 and 25/93; 14 February 1995 In…
[1959] 1 WLR 284
[1959] 1 WLR 284

…ow J); 100948/95; 10 April 1996 Symes v Green (1859) 165 ER 785 Timbury v Coffee (1941) 66 CLR 277 Winter v Crichton (1991) 23 NSWLR 116 Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 WLR 284…
Banks v Goodfellow
(1870) 5 QB 549

…Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558 Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 Hall v Hall [1868] LR 1 P & D 481 Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519 Silvester & Ors v Tarabini & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960062; 13 February 1996 West Australian Trustees v Holmes [1961] WAR 144 Worth v Clasohm (1952) 86 CLR 439 Bella-Lewis…
Symes v Green
(1859) 164 ER 785

…R 683 Re Fenwick [1972] VR 646 Re Walker [1905] 1 Ch 160 Ridge v Rowden, unreported, SCt of NSW Probate Division (Santow J); 100948/95; 10 April 1996 Symes v Green (1859) 165 ER 785 Timbury v Coffee (1941) 66 CLR 277 Winter v Crichton (1991) 23 NSWLR 116 Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 WLR 284…
Kenny v Wilson
(1911) 11 SR 460

…1844) 1 Rob ECC 51 In the Will of Ivory, unreported; SCt of Vic (Eames J); Prob 19 and 25/93; 14 February 1995 In the Will of Moriarty [1956] VLR 400 Kenny v Wilson (1911) 11 SR (NSW) 460 Lister v Smith (1863) 164 ER 1282 Pates v Craig and the Public Trustee, Estate of the late Joyce Jean Cole, unreported; SCt of NSW Eq…
[1899] AC 401
[1899] AC 401

…ed; SCt of NSW Equity Division; 106306/94; 28 August 1995 Perpetual Executors, Trustees & Agency Co (WA) v Deacon (1935) 38 WALR 31 Pilkington v Gray [1899] AC 401 Re Crooks (Estate); Akerman v Brown, unreported; SCt of NSW Probate Division (Young J); 107881/93; 14 December 1994 Re Edgar [1919] VLR 683 Re Fenwic…
Lister v Smith
(1863) 164 ER 1282

…SCt of Vic (Eames J); Prob 19 and 25/93; 14 February 1995 In the Will of Moriarty [1956] VLR 400 Kenny v Wilson (1911) 11 SR (NSW) 460 Lister v Smith (1863) 164 ER 1282 Pates v Craig and the Public Trustee, Estate of the late Joyce Jean Cole, unreported; SCt of NSW Equity Division; 106306/94; 28 August 1995 Perpetual…
Symes v Green
(1859) 165 ER 785

…ck [1972] VR 646 Re Walker [1905] 1 Ch 160 Ridge v Rowden, unreported, SCt of NSW Probate Division (Santow J); 100948/95; 10 April 1996 Symes v Green (1859) 165 ER 785 Timbury v Coffee (1941) 66 CLR 277 Winter v Crichton (1991) 23 NSWLR 116 Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 WLR 284…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Wills Act 1970 (WA)
13 2 mentions